The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance communications consultant. She tweets @tazeen and blogs at
http://tazeen-tazeen.blogspot.com

If someone was handing out awards to legislative assemblies for coming up with the most bizarre legislation and the most frivolous debates, chances are that the Punjab Assembly — the largest legislative house of the country — would win. The house has turned into such a joke of late that one wonders about the ability of most of its members to just be rational, let alone their ability to make laws.

Instead of taking up vital issues that affect the province — such as the high number of children out of school, the recent young doctors’ strike, increasing unemployment or the increase in beggary — members discuss matters that are irrelevant and can in no way be passed as matters of government interest, political debate, legislation or attempts at legislation, which is their raison d’être. Latest in the long line of inane debates is the discussion over Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy’s promise to pay Rs3 million to acid burn victim Rukhsana. Instead of discussing ways to strengthen laws on domestic violence, acid throwing and police reforms, the house went after the film-maker who first highlighted the often ignored issue through her work. It was quite ironic that the motion to ‘help this poor woman’ was moved by Sheikh Alauddin who is quite well known for his misogyny and has harassed his co-workers in assembly on camera.

When members of the assembly do work on issues of importance, they apply less and less diligence and care. For example, according to a PILDAT report, it took the provincial assembly only 21 hours and 56 minutes to pass the annual budget for the fiscal year 2012-13, which was around Rs782 billion. In comparison, the budget debates for 2011-2012 consumed approximately 39 hours — almost double the amount of time for 2012-2013 debates. The house passes multiple bills which have been returned to the assembly secretariat from the governor’s office with objections and reservations, without any changes made in the text. The provincial law minister disregarded the governor’s reservations by saying that the “governor has hired a team of English writers, who write the same type of objections on every bill.”

Going by the performance of this house, the election commission should be advised to start testing candidates on basic IQ tests before approving their nomination papers for the next elections. Who knows, the next assembly might want to declare elephants as fish.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (10)

It is then thought provoking that despite its failure in legislation; why the Punjab is still the best governed province among 4 provincial and a central assemblies. Is excessive or “serious” legislation a hindrance in good governance?

At least there is a debate in Punjab Assembly over some issues. Just look at the Sindh and KP assemblies with virtually no opposition and Balochistan Assembly is a joke. You might also want to look at the tussle between Shazia Marri and Marvi Rashdi over excessive makeup in assembly.

The author’s intention is very clear which is to shield Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy. The whole column revolves around her and is aimed to defame the provincial legislators as they have raised the issue to provide justice to poor woman (acid victim). I think the heading of this column is well suited for the author herself.
It is a paradox that Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy was working to highlight the plight of acid victims in Pakistan and rather she herself added her bit to to exploit the poor acid victim. It’s a shame really it’s a shame for us.

“Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah Khan who moved a motion to remove the ostrich from the bird category and place it in the same category of animals as goats and sheep, …”
That’s so hilarious and sad at the same time that my head feels like it’s going to explode.

Why cant the representatives of Punjab discuss Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy’s mis-comitment? Why not? Why media ppl want to dictate the representatives of people through their writings? Writers have to be conscious in giving names to the representatives of Pakistan. Please don’t spread your hate for people of Punjab.

“Rana Sanaullah Khan who moved a motion to remove the ostrich from the bird category and place it in the same category of animals as goats and sheep, in order to meet the increasing demand for meat in the province.”

Well people eat chicken don’t they? So if one bird can be eaten, why not another one? Why was it necessary to call it an animal to allow its meat to be sold?
Or has someone also said that chicken is an animal?